Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
WisdomLikeSilence
BurgerkingTM
108
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
How is "safe logoff" safer than say... logging off - apart from the requirement to sit visibly in space with no active modules, which I can assure you, is far from safe.
Does 'safe logoff ' invalidate aggro timers or something? |
Nex apparatu5
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
389
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:12:00 -
[32] - Quote
WisdomLikeSilence wrote:How is "safe logoff" safer than say... logging off - apart from the requirement to sit visibly in space with no active modules, which I can assure you, is far from safe.
Does 'safe logoff ' invalidate aggro timers or something?
It let's you know that your ship actually despawned when you log off, as opposed to just having to bet it's not just floating in space defenseless. |
Sturmwolke
298
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:16:00 -
[33] - Quote
Nex apparatu5 wrote:Sturmwolke wrote:So .... safe logoff timer is set at EXACTLY 45.6 secs, thats exactly 45600 milisecond or to be precise - 45,600,000 microsecond, correct? I don't see any other numbers .... unless someone, ah umm ... forgot something ... It's a minute, that timer is counting down. I thought that was obvious. Well, sir, you need to prove it. I can equally say it's counting down from 3 minutes without blinking.
|
Lecom
Airkio Mining Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:16:00 -
[34] - Quote
Wow talk about extreme carebear mode. The nanny state is coming to eve. |
Danny theDog
Phoenix Consortium Industries Black Core Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:16:00 -
[35] - Quote
Seems cool but still alot of 'major' issues that could've been looked at instead of this, like cloaky campers (fair enough they exist blah blah but they shouldn't be allowed to do it afk) how boring mining is, how ICE should've been removed from highsec, to make titans useful again ect ect
and also like to mention why is it razor got a bunch of carriers back when they lost them to the exploit of spam chats, when they lost them before it was classed as an exploit?? that sir is BS guarantee any other alliance not friendly to goons would off got the 'we show no errors in our logs'
meh im gonna go cry in a corner and listen to skrillex |
Nex apparatu5
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
389
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:18:00 -
[36] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Nex apparatu5 wrote:Sturmwolke wrote:So .... safe logoff timer is set at EXACTLY 45.6 secs, thats exactly 45600 milisecond or to be precise - 45,600,000 microsecond, correct? I don't see any other numbers .... unless someone, ah umm ... forgot something ... It's a minute, that timer is counting down. I thought that was obvious. Well, sir, you need to prove it. I can equally say it's counting down from 3 minutes without blinking.
OK. The current logout timer is one minute. They have not announced any changes the duration of the timer. Therefore the logout timer is 1 minute. |
Carol Krabit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:20:00 -
[37] - Quote
I would want an action that is not permitted under the current safety level to open a popup similar to the ones on TQ atm. "This action is not permitted because your safety level is blabla. Do you want to make an exception?". This way you still have the option to do some impulsive gcc'ing and so on. That would make the safety toggle be more like a confirmation toggle, but yeah. With it switched off, you have disabled all warnings and confirmations, excellent for eebil piwates and low sec dwellers. Me and most casual pvpers have all confirmation dialogs still on in case of misclicks, and to be able to turn them off temporarily (without having to go through the options menu) would be nice. Coupled with some confirmation pop up clarifications with clear consequences, it would go a long way.
TL;DR: Turning the safety toggle into a confirmation toggle would be nice although it won't happen. |
Lecom
Airkio Mining Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:20:00 -
[38] - Quote
Danny theDog wrote:Seems cool but still alot of 'major' issues that could've been looked at instead of this, like cloaky campers (fair enough they exist blah blah but they shouldn't be allowed to do it afk) how boring mining is, how ICE should've been removed from highsec, to make titans useful again ect ect
and also like to mention why is it razor got a bunch of carriers back when they lost them to the exploit of spam chats, when they lost them before it was classed as an exploit?? that sir is BS guarantee any other alliance not friendly to goons would off got the 'we show no errors in our logs'
meh im gonna go cry in a corner and listen to skrillex
this |
Shaishi Otichoda
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:30:00 -
[39] - Quote
If you have safety switched on, can you still engage legal war targets? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
796
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:31:00 -
[40] - Quote
WisdomLikeSilence wrote:How is "safe logoff" safer than say... logging off - apart from the requirement to sit visibly in space with no active modules, which I can assure you, is far from safe.
Does 'safe logoff ' invalidate aggro timers or something?
With Safe logoff: Someone's turned up and started shooting me! abort and retaliate!
Without Safe logoff: Where's my ship gone? It was there when I logged out?
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
796
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:32:00 -
[41] - Quote
Shaishi Otichoda wrote:If you have safety switched on, can you still engage legal war targets?
From their description, yes.
It just stops you doing anything that would give you a suspect or criminal flag (depending on the setting) FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Golden Gnu
EVE University Ivy League
68
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:33:00 -
[42] - Quote
*** CCP Greyscale is now known as popup killer Download is the meaning of life, upload is the meaning of intelligent life http://eve.nikr.net - home of jEveAssets |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1668
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:33:00 -
[43] - Quote
Graygor wrote: Now that I think about it this isn't nannying. You aren't telling us not to climb trees, more that if you get hurt don't come crying to us.
This is pretty much how I see it too: we're not saying you can't put your fingers in the plug socket, we're just asking you to sign a waiver first.
Chribba wrote: Just too bad you can't have your cloak activated while safe logoff, so for me I will still stick around cloaked until I am sure all timers are up.
/c
Ok, so you can't initiate a safe logoff until your timers have ended anyway. The benefit of safe logoff is:
- Unsafe logoff: you close the client, your ship turns off its modules, emergency-warps, sits in space for a minute and then disappears
- Safe logoff: you hit safe logoff, your ship sits in space for thirty seconds with its modules off, and then disappears
Other than not generating you an instant 1m km safespot, there's really no upside to unsafe logoff other than speed.
San Fransisco wrote:How will accidental disconnections work?
Same way they do currently
Skippermonkey wrote:So, i'm infering from your 'safety feature' that you think the average EVE player has the intelligence of a turnip and need their hand holding
It's more that a) I think the average EVE player has too many confusing, unintuitive systems to deal already, and b) the big wins aren't about individual player safety, they're about systemic soundness.
For one thing, this system guarantees that nothing like a "lofty scam"* can happen without the player's explicit consent. Not just that the current implementation of the system happens to not have any loopholes in it (as it is on TQ currently, AFAIK), but that the system simply does not allow it at a fundamental level. By enforcing it on the server as well as the client, it also allows us to catch corner cases which are otherwise-unsolvable.
For example, if a pilot in a war ejects from a ship in space, docks up and leaves the corporation, there's no sound way to tell war targets on grid with the ship that its owner is no longer at war with them without incurring a crippling performance hit on the server (there's an extensive technical reason to do with the way we propagate states that I'm not going to try and remember perfectly here). The end-user experience is that your client believes that ship you're targeting is a legal target, but when the server processes your attack it disagrees and you get CONCORDed. By having a safety system, and by tracking your safety state on the server, we can intervene at the last second and say "hey, that's not a legal target, your safeties are on, so your gun doesn't fire". This is essentially a generalization of the fix that we put in for remote assistance to prevent people getting entire Incursion fleets CONCORDed by having one guy in the rep chain pick up a GCC, to illustrate a completely different situation in which this sort of problem also occurs.
* A whole class of scams, the common factor in which is that the victim dies without ever being given the information needed to determine that they're in danger
Salpad wrote:Just two questions: Will maximum safety be enabled by default, even for veteran pilots?
And: Is safe logoff impossible while autopiloting? I'm guessing the answer is yes, but the dev blog isn't 100% clear about it.
- Yes, it will. We're cognizant of the small additional load that this puts on people who regularly want it off; we don't believe the load is much larger than the one already incurred by eg having to turn on your hardeners all the time, so we don't believe it's a *major* problem, but we're also not totally happy with it (as we're not for hardeners either) and we'd like to find a clean way to persist it between sessions without violating its primary goals.
- Insofar as autopiloting involves warping, yes.
Vincent Athena wrote:Im trying to understand this statement:
"Today I'm going to talk about how to fly safely in Retribution! We are adding a couple of new features to ensure that, when you inevitably lose your ship in a very silly way, it is very definitely 100% your fault."
How is my ship protected from loss in the cases of a disconnect, client freeze or a ""the socket was closed" error? None of those are my fault, so based on the above statement I assume from now on none of those will result in the loss of a ship. How is that done?
In those cases, you're losing your ship in a way that is not very silly, so the sentence does not apply. (I acknowledge the potential for ambiguity in the second quoted sentence but feel that the natural reading supports the intended meaning.)
T RAYRAY wrote:but on a more serious note --- help me understand what is in place to prevent the nullbear botters from using the safe loggoff timer to the detriment of the antibots. many of us were drooling over the botageddon that would happen 12/4 when the aggro mechanics change, but now CCP is giving them all a nice yellow countdown that they can use to make their gutless logoffski mannerisms function nearly foolproof.
This is counterbalanced by the fact that the safe logoff does *not* allow you to circumvent logoff timers, and the logoff timer for NPC aggression is now five minutes. I don't think you're going to have a problem.
Ra Jackson wrote:So will smartbombs be completely blocked from activation in hisec? Or will they miraculously shut down when a player comes into range? /edit: With the high security setting ofc.
Smartbombs require you to fully disable your safeties, yes. They're really not very smart, and there's no good way to prevent you from "accidentally" hitting that cloaked ship who sneaked into the mission with you and incurring the wrath of CONCORD.
|
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
211
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
I...I...I like this change... wow...I said it... seriously a very good change.
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
156
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
- Unsafe logoff: you close the client, your ship turns off its modules, emergency-warps, sits in space for a minute and then disappears
- Safe logoff: you hit safe logoff, your ship sits in space for thirty seconds with its modules off, and then disappears
So the timer in the picture is 45.6 seconds... why? Is this a mistake, or a late change? |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1669
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:43:00 -
[46] - Quote
Danny theDog wrote:Seems cool but still alot of 'major' issues that could've been looked at instead of this, like cloaky campers (fair enough they exist blah blah but they shouldn't be allowed to do it afk) how boring mining is, how ICE should've been removed from highsec, to make titans useful again ect ect
The old crimewatch as a whole was one of the biggest sore thumbs in the entire game in terms of incomprensibly complicated, user-unfriendly, hard-to-maintain, legendarily-fragile systems, and its previous state made improvements to a number of features essentially impossible due to the risk involved in touching it. Once we decided to fix it, we wanted to do so properly with the goal of presenting a complete, working system that didn't need revisiting in another few years, hence the inclusion of features like the safety system as part of the overall effort.
Carol Krabit wrote:I would want an action that is not permitted under the current safety level to open a popup similar to the ones on TQ atm. "This action is not permitted because your safety level is blabla. Do you want to make an exception?". This way you still have the option to do some impulsive gcc'ing and so on. That would make the safety toggle be more like a confirmation toggle, but yeah. With it switched off, you have disabled all warnings and confirmations, excellent for eebil piwates and low sec dwellers. Me and most casual pvpers have all confirmation dialogs still on in case of misclicks, and to be able to turn them off temporarily (without having to go through the options menu) would be nice. Coupled with some confirmation pop up clarifications with clear consequences, it would go a long way.
TL;DR: Turning the safety toggle into a confirmation toggle would be nice although it won't happen.
The main reason we didn't want to do this was that EVE has far too many "are you sure" popups and we're not convinced that they get read all that often, particularly when you're in a bind. Plus doing it in a clear, understandable, visually different way makes it much less likely that "yeah, just do A B C and then click "ok" in the dialogue" scams will score many victims. Plus see all the above reasons about client/server issues
Shaishi Otichoda wrote:If you have safety switched on, can you still engage legal war targets?
Yup. It only stops you from getting suspect/criminal flags; anything else, including faction hits and the like, is fair game. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1669
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:44:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
- Unsafe logoff: you close the client, your ship turns off its modules, emergency-warps, sits in space for a minute and then disappears
- Safe logoff: you hit safe logoff, your ship sits in space for thirty seconds with its modules off, and then disappears
So the timer in the picture is 45.6 seconds... why? Is this a mistake, or a late change?
Oh. Whoops. Late change. Lemme go fix that... |
|
Jing Xin
Gravity Mining and Manufacturing Inc Storm of Souls
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:44:00 -
[48] - Quote
I hope safety setting is persistent through docking, jumping, logging off. If it constantly defaults to green, some people will be seriously annoyed. |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
68
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:49:00 -
[49] - Quote
Jing Xin wrote:I hope safety setting is persistent through docking, jumping, logging off. If it constantly defaults to green, some people will be seriously annoyed. currently unless it has changed since last week it is not persistant wumbo |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1998
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
Louis deGuerre wrote:This is nice for the new players but will make canflippers cry. I am in two minds about it to be honest. How? It just ensures carebears won't get CONCORD'ed, but with the safety "On", they can still fire at canflippers without getting a Suspect or Criminal flag -- so canflipping still works as before. In fact, it might work even better due to carebears thinking "green = safe", which is false.
I like the changes. +1 Rifterlings - small gang frigate PvP - low/nullsec operations, newbie-friendly, free ship program; Join today! www.rifterlings.com
Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com |
|
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1349
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:53:00 -
[51] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
- Unsafe logoff: you close the client, your ship turns off its modules, emergency-warps, sits in space for a minute and then disappears
- Safe logoff: you hit safe logoff, your ship sits in space for thirty seconds with its modules off, and then disappears
So the timer in the picture is 45.6 seconds... why? Is this a mistake, or a late change? Oh. Whoops. Late change. Lemme go fix that... Why does the safe logoff have a shorter timer than the unsafe logoff? That makes no sense. The entire point of the safe logoff is so you can see your ship during that minute and act if anything happens to it. I think it's rather coddling to reduce the timer.
With regards to smartbombing in highsec, I'm about to go test that on Buckingham. Will post results. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1669
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 15:54:00 -
[52] - Quote
Eli Green wrote:Jing Xin wrote:I hope safety setting is persistent through docking, jumping, logging off. If it constantly defaults to green, some people will be seriously annoyed. currently unless it has changed since last week it is not persistant
Should be persisted per session, but not currently between sessions (see above). Ie, so long as you stay logged in, it stays the same; log out and it goes back to default. |
|
Carol Krabit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 16:00:00 -
[53] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Why does the safe logoff have a shorter timer than the unsafe logoff?
Possibly because you are missing out on the emergency warp? |
San Fransisco
Silver Falcon Survey
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 16:01:00 -
[54] - Quote
When you log back in after a safe log off will you simply pop into existence and be able to act immediately?
I can imagine some unpleasant surprises if that is the case. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
62
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 16:07:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Eli Green wrote:Jing Xin wrote:I hope safety setting is persistent through docking, jumping, logging off. If it constantly defaults to green, some people will be seriously annoyed. currently unless it has changed since last week it is not persistant Should be persisted per session, but not currently between sessions (see above). Ie, so long as you stay logged in, it stays the same; log out and it goes back to default.
Is making it persist between sessions on the table? I'd rather just turn it off and not have to deal with various safety settings ever. |
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 16:11:00 -
[56] - Quote
I think that ideally, Safety should default to certain positions depending on whether you're in highsec or not.
If I'm in lowsec, after all, sometimes I need to shoot first. So, I'd want my safety to default to "off" whenever I jump to lowsec, and automatically return to "on" when I return to highsec.
Are there likely to be safety options where I can configure such a thing? An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
310
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 16:14:00 -
[57] - Quote
so wait if we unsafe logoff we DONT warp 1m km?
if so...things will get very interesting |
Shaishi Otichoda
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 16:14:00 -
[58] - Quote
San Fransisco wrote:When you log back in after a safe log off will you simply pop into existence and be able to act immediately? I just tested this and you do 1000000km warp-in just to appear in space 1.8 AU from the spot where you logged out
It looks like there are some issues to be fixed. |
Delta3000
Barr Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 16:21:00 -
[59] - Quote
So this new safety mechanic is the reason you're bringing back snowballs for christmas.
I was thinking that I'd permanently have my safety's off, even when venturing through high sec but now I've thought about it I should probably turn them on in high sec so I don't get trolled by the inevitable snowball spammers. |
Delta3000
Barr Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 16:23:00 -
[60] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:so wait if we unsafe logoff we DONT warp 1m km?
if so...things will get very interesting No, you do. It's the same as before. The difference is if you safe logoff, you won't warp anywhere. Not only is this logical, but it also prevents people from generating random 1m km bookmarks by abusing the safe logoff system. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |